168 Republicans vote against active shooter allert system

[BackAgain]

If you can't point to the good, then why pass it? Believe me, every bill that the Federal Government passes is intended to strip just a little bit of liberty.

There are already laws against murder, robbery, rape, child porn, and theft. There are very few other laws that I need from government. Everything else is passed for the benefit of government.

If the coordination effort yields a coherent way of communicating such a threat which doesn’t simultaneously notify the shooter of where the hidden targets may be hiding, off hand I’d say that not a bad outcome.

I’m generally willing to piss all over some sound-good, feel-good but empty Democrap Party proposal. But this one isn’t particularly offensive. It’s possible it has some merit.

 

[BackAgain]

By the way, how does such a coordinated means of notifying potential victims without notifying the shooter work?

Who knows? I don’t think that’s been ascertained yet. Maybe why they are proposing the brainstorming.

Maybe text message everyone in the error without texting the shooter? Maybe, then, they actually know and track everyone's location so they know who to text?
You really are a big-government guy, aren't you?

You seem a bit unduly agitated. Go soak in a tub. Take a Midol if need be.

For my part, I am content to be a small government guy. But that doesn’t mean I am obliged to say that anything the government does must be wrong. Even a lightweight lib Democrap can occasionally suggest something that might merit some consideration.

 

[pknopp]

If you want people to vote 3rd-party then that party should do the work to have a chance of doing something. They simply rob donor money and votes of people who really care.

How much money did you donate to your 3rd-Party last election?

Money? LOL, this is a post just to tee up an argument about money isn't it?

I give no one a penny and I don't understand why anyone does.

The lesser of two evils IS less evil. You want to pat yourself on the back and ignore evil. You are worse than the other two evils.

Thank you.

 

[woodwork201]

Who knows? I don’t think that’s been ascertained yet. Maybe why they are proposing the brainstorming.

You seem a bit unduly agitated. Go soak in a tub. Take a Midol if need be.

For my part, I am content to be a small government guy. But that doesn’t mean I am obliged to say that anything the government does must be wrong. Even a lightweight lib Democrap can occasionally suggest something that might merit some consideration.

No, you're not a small-government guy. Small-government guys start by saying no to any new law and have to be convinced of it's value before supporting it. You take exactly the opposite approach. You're exactly the kind of sheep the big-government guys, even those you call Democraps, just love.

 

[woodwork201]

Money? LOL, this is a post just to tee up an argument about money isn't it?

I give no one a penny and I don't understand why anyone does.

Then you really are an idiot. You throw your vote away where it can never do any good just so you can get online and boast that you threw it away. If you really believed in their cause, you'd do what you can to make your vote for them mean something.

Honestly, I doubt seriously that you could even be bothered to vote.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

1,400 'lifers' released from California prisons in last 3 years​

76K California violent, career felons get earlier releases - ABC News​

Virginia released killers, rapists and kidnappers in parole rush ...​

Keep pivoting and deflecting.
It's in your DNA.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

I'm pro-choice. I believe people have the right to be stupid and kill themselves with crack or other drugs.

I'm pro-choice. I believe the baby in the womb gets to be part of the choice about abortion

Sure,you are.

Really?
How?

and just as soon as that baby is of age to legally agree to aborting it, and then does so agree, then you can abort it.

So, you don't mind supporting it, until then?

 

[Centaur]

Whats the issue here ? Do they want to give mass shooters an even break ?

View attachment 670164169

What's the law consist of? Provide more details.

 

[BackAgain]

No, you're not a small-government guy. Small-government guys start by saying no to any new law and have to be convinced of it's value before supporting it. You take exactly the opposite approach. You're exactly the kind of sheep the big-government guys, even those you call Democraps, just love.

Thanks for sharing your erroneous assumptions and incorrect conclusion.

 

[woodwork201]

Sure,you are.

Really?
How?

So, you don't mind supporting it, until then?

I didn't make it. I'm not supporting it.

 

[woodwork201]

Thanks for sharing your erroneous assumptions and incorrect conclusion.

Nope. You said that laws should pass unless there's something that YOU find in them that's a problem. That's big government. More laws is your default.

 

[BackAgain]

Nope. You said that laws should pass unless there's something that YOU find in them that's a problem. That's big government. More laws is your default.

I don’t recall saying that. I believe you may be hallucinating. Or you are just lying. Quote and cite the post, or stfu.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Whats the issue here ? Do they want to give mass shooters an even break ?

View attachment 670164169

/----/ Is a a perfetly good reason that Republicans voted against it.
“This bill is about Democrat fear-mongering that guns are an ever-present threat, and we cannot be safe until big government rounds up every last one of them,” Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH) said on the House floor.

 

[woodwork201]

I don’t recall saying that. I believe you may be hallucinating. Or you are just lying. Quote and cite the post, or stfu.

I’m not sure what about the bill requires any significant opposition. Frankly, the bill seems pretty harmless on its face. I may be missing something, though:

If a bill is harmless on its face then, to you, it doesn't require any significant opposition. You didn't say that if the bill did some good then don't oppose it, you said if it seems harmless on its face. The starting point for a bill, to you, is no significant opposition. If you can identify the harm, then perhaps oppose.

If you were truly a small government guy, you'd say that all bills must be strongly opposed unless they provide significant identifiable value that significantly outweighs even the risk of harm.

You're not a small government guy; you're a big government, authoritarian, guy.

 

[BackAgain]

If a bill is harmless on its face then, to you, it doesn't require any significant opposition. You didn't say that if the bill did some good then don't oppose it, you said if it seems harmless on its face. The starting point for a bill, to you, is no significant opposition. If you can identify the harm, then perhaps oppose.

If you were truly a small government guy, you'd say that all bills must be strongly opposed unless they provide significant identifiable value that significantly outweighs even the risk of harm.

You're not a small government guy; you're a big government, authoritarian, guy.

So, you weren’t able to find any post of mine saying what you falsely attributed to me. Check.

And I am a small government guy. Your lack of comprehension and your erroneous conclusion about the import of what I’ve said is merely a reflection of your mental limitations.

Buzz off kid.

 

[Stryder50]

/----/ Is a a perfetly good reason that Republicans voted against it.
“This bill is about Democrat fear-mongering that guns are an ever-present threat, and we cannot be safe until big government rounds up every last one of them,” Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH) said on the House floor.

And also ...
in this case seems the reason may be unnecessary duplication.
QUOTE:
H.R. 6538: NO. This sends $2 million to the DOJ to implement an “Active Shooter Alert” notification that duplicates the existing Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS). Warning the public of imminent threats is a useful activity, which is why we have the IPAWS. Setting up a duplicative system only for gunfire unnecessarily complicates and confuses the existing system and risks desensitizing the public with false alarms under the loose definitions in this bill.
...

H.R. 6538: NO ​

H.R. 6538: NO. This sends $2 million to the DOJ to implement an “Active Shooter Alert” notification that duplicates the existing Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS). Warning the public of imminent threats is a useful activity, which is why we have the IPAWS. Setting up a...

mcclintock.house.gov

 

[Cellblock2429]

And also ...
in this case seems the reason may be unnecessary duplication.
QUOTE:
H.R. 6538: NO. This sends $2 million to the DOJ to implement an “Active Shooter Alert” notification that duplicates the existing Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS). Warning the public of imminent threats is a useful activity, which is why we have the IPAWS. Setting up a duplicative system only for gunfire unnecessarily complicates and confuses the existing system and risks desensitizing the public with false alarms under the loose definitions in this bill.
...

H.R. 6538: NO ​

H.R. 6538: NO. This sends $2 million to the DOJ to implement an “Active Shooter Alert” notification that duplicates the existing Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS). Warning the public of imminent threats is a useful activity, which is why we have the IPAWS. Setting up a...

mcclintock.house.gov

/———/ I’ve had a so called debate with a libtard about Congressional pork bills. This is a perfect example why it’s a bad bill with a nice sounding name.

 

[woodwork201]

So, you weren’t able to find any post of mine saying what you falsely attributed to me. Check.

And I am a small government guy. Your lack of comprehension and your erroneous conclusion about the import of what I’ve said is merely a reflection of your mental limitations.

Buzz off kid.

Wrong. What I quoted was you saying what I attributed to you. You said that unless there's something identifiably harmful in the bill there's no reason to oppose it. That's big government. That's government first. Quit denying it.

 

[BackAgain]

Wrong. What I quoted was you saying what I attributed to you. You said that unless there's something identifiably harmful in the bill there's no reason to oppose it. That's big government. That's government first. Quit denying it.

Lying liars lie. You are committed to dishonesty. And stupidity. A dynamite combo, you lying liar retard.

And no. I didnt make that claim, you imbecile.